Talk:Iced coffee (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I decided to make this a seperate article despite the existence of an iced coffee article as that page is already confused enough and the term Iced Coffee is very culturally relative in my experience - much more than I would have thought for a drink Robert Brockway 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have a whole separate article when a simple subsection will do? I mean, if every article were split with small details like that, then the Tea article would be in a million pieces by now and Hot chocolate would be in at least two or three. Besides, the "Australian" version of iced coffee is what I consider iced coffee in the United States and it's one of the things the Starbucks down the street sells as "iced coffee," not to mention the Acme has it, too.
Just make it a new section in the same article, you really don't need a whole new one. And if you're creating a new one, cite your sources. Who says it sells more than chocolate milk? A newspaper, a scientific study, etc? — Indi [ talk ] 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I've tried to get "iced coffee" in the US the drink I've been served has been consistent with that described in iced coffee -- essentially cold coffee, which is totally different to what this article describes. I live in Canada these days but I'll go checkout a Starbucks here and see what they have. I'll do the same next time I'm in .us again
As per my initial entry for the article, I have researched this before. As I was creating the article I went to look up some sources but realised it was going to take longer than the time I had. I created the article anyway and plan to add sources when I can. Robert Brockway 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC) time please reply below my reply - not in the middle of it. I won't drag this out any further. Instead I direct you to Notice that there are no Soft drink (England) or Soft drink (Portugal) articles. All of the various types of drinks that various people call "soft drinks" are included. I feel this situation should follow a similar format. Okay now I'll cease making a big deal about it. =P — Indi [ talk ] 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Indi. So far as I can tell I did reply below your post (I just compared the text). It looks like I may have unintentionally added a line break sorry. Anyway, I'll checkout the articles you suggest. Robert Brockway 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that this should be put in as a section of iced coffee, but with the point that the coffee is mixed with milk rather than water in pre-packaged drinks sold in Australia. - Richardcavell 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I didn't do this is because the other article is referring to a completely different sort of beverage (the method of production and contents are both different). The only things they have in common are a) they contain coffee, b) they have the same name. I don't think they should be in the same article any more than the various types of plants called mimosa are in the same article. A disambiguation page would not be a bad idea. Robert Brockway 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Since nothing has been said for over a week about the matter and no sources have been cited, I have added the information from this article to the main article at Iced coffee under Iced_coffee#Australia with a {{citation needed}} tag after the unsourced text. I'm going to turn this page into a redirect since the same information is in the Iced coffee article unless there are any objections (i.e. this article can become more than just a stub). — Indi [ talk ] 15:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)